But in the lead-up and within the announcement itself there was significant uncertainty about what it all meant.

Afterwards even more so - with some media around the country calculating in total dollar terms what the announcement would deliver to Paralympians.

One suggested that this would mean just under half a million dollars to the para-swimmers alone - determined by multiplying each gold medal won by $20,000, each silver by $15,000 and each bronze by $10,000.

But if this is correct, the newly-announced scheme would be way more generous than that available to Olympians - who get a single payment based on their best medal.

The original announcement by Sports Minister Richard Colbeck provided no such clarity - stating that the Government would ensure that "Australia's Paralympic athletes received payments for winning medals at the Tokyo Games in line with the payments to our Tokyo Olympic medallists".

This perhaps means that those behind the announcement didn't actually know what those payments were - and, given the rushed nature of the announcement, maybe without time to find out. That could also have been the case when Chloe Dalton, the rugby sevens Olympic gold medallist from Rio turned AFLW player for the GWS Giants, launched her fund-raiser to provide the Paralympic medallists with something.

So, let's try to make it a little clearer.

The Australian Olympic Committee provides Medal Incentive Funding each year - not just after the Olympics. At the start of each year, the AOC and each national federation agree on a benchmark event or ranking system that will be used to determine the grants. The idea is to "incentivise athletes to continue training with the goal of representing Australia at the Olympic Games".

In an Olympic year the benchmark event is, of course, the Olympic Games itself. As in each other year, athletes who win a medal at the benchmark event receive the relevant payment in the following year.

While the scheme was previously more generous, athletes who win more than one medal are now only eligible for one payment - for their highest medal.

In the midst of the blur of the debate over these rewards, inevitably many in the commentariat extended the argument further to funding of prospective Olympians and Paralympians generally. In many cases with clearly little or no research undertaken but with plenty of false assumptions made, the storyline was that para-athletes get a raw deal all the time.

I probably won't be popular for saying this - but this is simply not the case.

Australia's most talented para-athletes across the range of Paralympic sports are very well funded - certainly in line with the able-bodied colleagues - even more generously as some would argue.

The Federal Government together with the various national sporting organisations provides yearly funding for athlete preparation. It's based on a similar criteria as the medal incentive programs but extending even further down the placing list and to those deemed to have future podium potential.

In general, the same criteria is applied to para-athletes as the able-bodied, meaning there is potential for considerably more para-athletes to be funded because they compete across the classifications, often against competition rosters of considerably less-depth.

Complementary programs provide funding for training camps and for attendance at national and international competitions - again in the same way to both para and able-bodied athletes.

Similarly for equipment grants - although in that regard the total cost is correctly in favour of the para-athletes because much of their specialised equipment is custom made and expensive.

There are some advocates for able-bodied athletes who argue that current schemes are balanced too far in favour of para-athletes.

That may or may not be valid but what is absolutely correct is that funding for our para-stars is very much in line with our able-bodied high achievers.